We have met the sexist enemy, and he is you, Mr. Hunt.

"My daughter loved Sex and the City, and women are great and blah blah blah whiny women blah blah blah."

Yes, he can say that there was no sexism, and that complaints about it are only "whining". But it's funny how the public can in general see through through pundit bias.

The real effect of his comments is simply to make those who already agree with him -- Obama supporters -- feel more convinced of their righteousness (one of their more attractive traits, of course), but to make any independent or opposed person lose respect for his opinion.

And of course his quoting the Pew Center regarding media bias only further underscores both his and the Pew Center's lack of credibility (though one wonders how the Pew Center might fail in any way in objectivity -- aren't they basically academics, and aren't academics unfailingly fair and objective in their assessments?)

This theme is also related to the sore winner concept, which is a constant from the trolls here & in the comments sections of the various "news" sites that I sometimes read.  The sore winner gig began back in 2000 with the Bu$hInc gang.  It results from the internalized knowledge that your team won by cheating.  It is tough to acknowledge that you & your colleagues are just plain thugs, so the most effective method to elevate your own puny ego is to demean the opponent--allow yourself to pretend that they grovel & "whine" in the face of your own superior ability to cheat.  That's because the opponent "deserved" to lose.

didn't lose the Democratic presidential nomination because she is a woman, and gender no longer is a big deal in American elections.

It is shocking to me that any judge could rule that a female rape victim doesn't have the right to use the word "rape" while testifying about the crime perpetrated against her. It defies belief that a judge could rule that the words "rape" and "sexual assault" are prohibited during testimony from a victim to describe a horrific crime of--well--RAPE.

Maybe Jeralyn could address this court ruling in a later post. I'd be very interested in hearing her take on it. Whether it ultimately is argued as a First Amendment right, or an Equal Rights violation, it is nonetheless an obviously shocking assault on the victims of rape (mostly women) and their right to justice.

Judges stir controversy by barring the word 'rape' in court
By Tony Rizzo | Kansas City Star
It's the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her. She was raped.

But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word "rape" in front of a jury. The term "sexual assault" also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word "assailant" to describe the man who allegedly raped her.

The defendant's presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen's right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.

Bowen's case is part of what some prosecutors and victim advocates see as a national trend in sexual assault cases. "It's a topic that's coming up more and more," said Joshua Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor and a vice president of the National District Attorneys Association.

In Kansas City, Senior Judge Gene Martin recently issued a similar order for the trial of a man charged with raping a teenager in 2000. Despite the semantic restrictions, the Jackson County jury last week found Ray Slaughter guilty of forcible rape and two counts of forcible sodomy.

Bowen's case gained national notoriety and drew the attention of free-speech proponents after she filed a lawsuit challenging the judge's actions as a First Amendment violation. A federal appeals court dismissed the suit, but Bowen's attorney plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the full story at KansasCity.com.

The key, Ms. McCaskill said, is approaching Mrs. Clinton's supporters with utmost humility. And, Ms. Backus added, that is not always the strongest suit of the young people who are some of Mr. Obama's most enthusiastic supporters.

"Not nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh," Ms. McCaskill said, making a taunting sound. "We need them very, very badly, and we shouldn't be able to be afraid to say that we need them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07women.html?pagewanted=print

Humility means not denigrating those who speak about sexism.  It means listening.  

Who is the bigger victim of intolerance?   What remains the larger problem in society, racism or sexism?

Well.  A signpost on that highway is now this sudden realization.  No one can ever say someone else is whining about racism without appearing insensitive to the issue if not complicit.

This campaigan just exposed the ugliness waiting to pour out of newscasters, coworkers, and friends when looking for a few yuks, a little attention, a way to put down Clinton and her supporters.  My mother used to tell me, when men would say sexist things, that "some men are just like that."  I think this campaign has shown that our culture has a real problem.  It's not that sexism prevented Clinton from doing anything - it's just that it made the whole process more difficult for everyone involved; difficult for Clinton, who had to have the grace to ignore the idiots in NH telling her to iron their shirts; difficult for her female supporters, who probably suffered more than Clinton the indignity of seeing one of their own bear remarks that by their nature could be directed at any of us ; difficult for the undecided voter, who constantly had to look past the troubling characterizations of Clinton to make up their mind.

To be sure, some of the cable-television news bloviators were egregiously unfair to Hillary Clinton; so was there some egregiously unfair coverage of Barack Obama. There is little indication they influenced the electorate.

If you can swallow the notion that Al Hunt, Judy Woodruff and the rest of the Beltway Opinion Elite truly believe they have no influence on the electorate, then I guess you'll also believe that the presence of some prominent women politicians among Obama's supporters makes it impossible that the Obama campaign used any sexist imagery in contrasting Obama to Hillary, or indeed that the Obama team "out-thought and out-strategized" the Clinton team "at every turn" by cleverly taking a beating in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana after he had been anointed as unbeatable.

Yet, if women are ambitious and overcome the societal inequities, as Sex and the City women try to do, then Mr. Hunt sees it as a "celebration of banal excess"

There is a substantial gender gap in political ambition,'' they conclude. ``Men tend to have it and women don't.''

He acts as if all 45-year-old women--women two years younger than he is--are at the same stage in life. Their kids are in college, they're struggling, and so on.

His wife is about 45, with kids in elementary school, so you'd think he'd know more about the variety of situations they might face. But no--in Obama's mind, they're all MUCH older than he is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

What is bothering me about the media chatter re: sexism is that the first thing they say now is "For her to say she lost due to sexism is rediculous...." or "all of a sudden she is losing and now blames sexism...."and the discussion ends there.

Its not "all of a sudden".  Here is a great article by Tom Watson from January...
http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/01/the-sexist-medi.html

"What kind of progressive American leader would stand silent, supporting with the cold reserve of ambition the disgracefully sexist, blatantly anti-feminist attack on a well-respected woman of the same party, a political foe perhaps, but a national Democratic leader?

After 36 years of being a Democrat, this has been the final straw for me.  I have realized that women have really made very little progress since the anti-ERA forces mobilized in the mid-1970s.  I believe that the last -ism is sexism because it is so deeply ingrained in American society that most of us--men AND women--don't even notice it at the moment it happens.  I admit there have been many occasions in my life when I have felt offended by someone, but I couldn't immediately understand why.  Only after thinking about the conversation did I realize that the person made a sexist statement.  It's almost subliminal.  

I fear it's too late for me to see real change in my lifetime, but what do I do to change this for my daughters?  I believe the only way to get the attention of the Democratic Party is by withholding my vote and encouraging other women to do the same.  Unfortunately, I don't think the DNC will be able to figure out WHY they've lost my vote.  

Would Keith Olberman have kept his job if, referring to Lieberman, he'd said, "I wish someone would gas him, send him to the showers."

You, know, like "she was asking of it."

And he starts off the article with the brilliant (heh) observation that women are different from men, because (wait for it) his daughter liked the SEX AND THE CITY movie and he didn't.

Another example I have just witnessed is the treatment of women players in the French Open in Paris. The women's final was broadcast, as was the men's. For the women's final, the commentators talked non-stop throughout - even during play.
They even featured a recorded interview with the men finalists which began after the 1st set - and went through until after the first game of the second set. They didn't even offer a split screen for those of us who were interested in seeing the unfolding of the match.

For the men's final, which turned out to have far less drama, the talking heads maintained a respectful silence during play.

They know people like Al and the rest of the media will do exactly what Al and the rest of th media are doing (and have done) to Hillary.

They will tell jokes about her appearance, question her femininity, challenge her motherhood and mothering skills. They will complain her voice is shrill.

They will say that she sounds like their first wife outside the the divorce court. Sound familiar? This is one of Chris Matthews constant chatterboxes. This guy's wife couldn't stand him and he can't see the truth of why she left him. HE probably drove HER crazy with his sexist drivel and "rules" about what was appropriate for her to do, what money she could spend, you get the picture! I've "left" this bozo too... fortunately for me I just had to not stop at MSNBC anymore. It took more work for her to get rid of his sorry carcass.

They will say that she emasculates men. That they  instinctively cross their legs when she speaks. Of course that last one was from another of Matthews "little" friends. Maybe since he was so petite and  his voice wasn't very low he had his manhood questioned a few too many times. Aren't you glad you aren't his wife!

You get the picture. I'm sure Al's daughter would never try politics, she is probably continually rolling her eyes at what her father says, but she gets the message he sends. Be a nice litte girl and make daddy proud. Don't rock the boat. Don't be ambitious. Sad the limitations they place on their own daughters.

Sad the limitations they try to place on over half the population.

Good thing fewer women are listening to them.

Hillary is right. We should be looking forward and looking for women to run for office.

Consider it for yourself and encourage others you think would be good in office. We know women succeed at the same rate as men when they run, and we know people like Al wouldn't say that if it wasn't blatantly true... they couldn't get away with a lie that data clearly could prove them wrong. They just try to undermine the women who attempt as an object lesson to those that might try.

There's nothing the Democratic Party can do to lessen racism and sexism.  They are "thought" that can't be banned or controlled by rules and laws.  Yes, they should be identified when they are expressed, and society on whole needs to become more aware and sensitive.  However, you can't halt political campaigns to exorcise demons every time one pops up its ugly head.

Overall, the Democratic Party is much better about these problems.  The GOP, by definition, is the preferred party of racial and gender bigots.  Not all Republicans are bigots, but I find that most bigots I meet are Republicans.

So, if sexism or racism are important issues for somebody, then he or she would be behooved to support Barack Obama and the party instead of tearing them down.

Would you really have us believe that if the Democratic party, in the form of its leaders and members of Congress and candidates, did not act as role models against any of the "isms" that nothing would change?  I mean, how do you think we managed to make as much progress as we have against these things?  Would you really have us believe that if prominent members of the party - including Barack Obama - had forcefully and vocally pushed back against the sexism that it would have continued to flourish during this campaign?

Why was "the Speech" on race considered such a watershed event in this campaign, and why was there such a concerted effort to stop the most overt and egregious examples of racism?

Of course the party cannot control what people think, but what effect would there have been if every public face of the party had gone on every talking head and news show and confronted people about the sexism, had pushed back, had defended not just Hillary Clinton, but women in general?

And what if Barack Obama had not been a major contributor to the effort to demean Hillary because of her gender?  What if he had come to her defense?

I think there has been a growing feeling that maybe the Democratic Party is not the standard-bearer on issues of gender that people used to think it was - and this was the campaign that changed that.

It's the new hot topic to be discussed on the MCM and then dispatched down the Memory Hole. That's what all these little discussions, for the most part, are about: Say something, do not embroil Big MCMers in the issue, and move on.

On WNYC's public radio discussion show this morning, The Brian Lehrer Show, third segment (available as a podcast), three women commenters were asked to give their opinions of what happened, why had Hillary suddenly discussed sexism is society in her concession speech on Saturday?

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, Nation magazine columnist and Columbia law professor Patricia Williams, and Katha Pollitt, Nation magazine columnist "talked about Hillary Clinton's Saturday speech and her campaign's impact on women and the feminist movement."  

All three were asked to disclose their primary picks, now that the primary was over: All three said they were strong supporters of Obama, albeit Wilson said she had initially been torn bcz she knew Hillary from her college days. One of the non-Wilson women said that 90% of the women she knew supported Obama.

The big take away is that Hillary failed in presenting sexism as an issue.

Among other things discussed were that Hillary did not connect with younger femininsts (? how many are there who call themselves that?), that she did not use her run for the presidency to bring up sexism, that at first she ran as a man, that she had not discussed the "intersection" between sexism and Jane Crow laws. A caller, iirc, did say that when Hillary made the smallest mention of being a woman, she was savagely belittled by the MCM. No one mentioned how the MCM reacted when she simply said that attending the all-women's Wellesley (in a speech given at the college, btw) had prepared her for the all-men's presidential primary club, but her mention of being asked policy and tricky questions first was mentioned as a negative for how she handled things.

Get it? It's all her fault.

Get the picture? These three people, two who work full time in the lower reaches of the MCM and one who works in academia (Columbia, not Princeton as I had written weeks ago when I mentioned that Wilson was definitely in the Obama camp, but played an objective commenter on WNYC) and writing for The Nation, first and foremost blamed Hillary for not concentrating on sexism, sexism and racism, and racism issues in her campaign.  This about the candidate who did attend Black political conferences which Obama chose to not attend! And guess what? Obama was post-racial so he didn't need to talk about race until he was forced to by the nasty, mean MCM bringing up the minister of his.

So, is the press whining? Yes, they are.

Is the MCM spinning their own role in this? Why, yes, they are!

Sidenote: Woman prof called in to say her students, except for Latinas who were for Hillary, were madly enthusiastic about Obama, that he had been branded exceptionally well (cool, metropolitan), and the kids bought into him as part of their consumerism.  His campaign had "cooler" things, buttons people could collect and trade. Hillary had missed a big means of connecting with young people by not have "cool things" for them to buy!

It all reminds me of the trick that still gets pulled on women: "hey, it must be that time of the month" which relegates everything we say to emotional hysteria that has no basis in reality - it's just hormones, you know.  Once we get past the child-bearing years, we get "wow, menopause has really sent you over the edge," so they get us no matter where we are hormonally.

I don't want to get into trouble for saying this, but why not vote for McCain? My site talks about reasons why the normal reasons for fearing Republicans (ie, court appointments) are not in play this year.

Not voting and allowing the Dems to win won't send a message. Doing your best to support the other guy will do a lot to get the message across.

I'm not angry at the party for their sexism (which is not to say it doesn't exist). I think the superdelegates supported Obama because they hated Clinton and wanted to create a separate power base that would benefit their own situation, regardless of the problems an Obama presidency would create for the country. So I'm angry at the Democrats for nominating a manifestly unaccomplished (and way too liberal) candidate and expecting me to vote for him simply because he's got a (D) next to his name.

For me, resolving this is simple: I'm voting for McCain and doing what I can to convince others to do the same, because I want the Democrats to understand that they can't count on me just because of that (D).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611090002
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710040003
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703270007